G.R. No.

40243 March 11, 1992

CELESTINO TATEL, petitioner,

vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC

FACTS:

 Respondent municipal officials contend that petitioner's warehouse was constructed in

violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting the construction of warehouses
near a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without maintaining the necessary
distance of 200 meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by
accidental fire.
 It appears from the records that on the basis of complaints received from the residents of
barrio Sta. Elena on March 18, 1966 against the disturbance caused by the operation of the
abaca bailing machine inside the warehouse of petitioner which affected the peace and
tranquility of the neighborhood due to the smoke, obnoxious odor and dust emitted by the
machine.
 The committee noted the crowded nature of the neighborhood with narrow roads and the
surrounding residential houses, so much so that an accidental fire within the warehouse of
the petitioner occasioned by the continuance of the activity inside the warehouse and the
storing of inflammable materials created a danger to the lives and properties of the people
within the neighborhood.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void.

RULING:

NO. Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac in the
exercise of its police power.

It is a settled principle of law that municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the
promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with the police
powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their creation. Its
authority emanates from the general welfare clause under the Administrative Code, which reads:

The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not
repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers
and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem necessary and proper to
provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace,
good order, comfort and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof,
and for the protection of property therein.
 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the
municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, and
must be in consonance with certain well established and basic principles of a substantive nature.
These principles require that a municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any
statute (2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not
prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must
not be unreasonable.

Here, Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1952 meets the criteria of a valid ordinance, therefore it is
not unconstitutional.